[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <s5hpp3sjlfd.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 15:12:38 +0200
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To: Nariman Poushin <nariman@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: broonie@...nel.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org, airlied@...ux.ie,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
peter.ujfalusi@...com, bardliao@...ltek.com, lee.jones@...aro.org,
laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com, sameo@...ux.intel.com,
patches@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com, Paul.Handrigan@...rus.com,
tony@...mide.com, lars@...afoo.de, dmurphy@...com,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, oder_chiou@...ltek.com,
brian.austin@...rus.com, support.opensource@...semi.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
lgirdwood@...il.com
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH 2/2] V4 regmap: Apply optional delay in multi_reg_write/register_patch
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 16:45:52 +0200,
Nariman Poushin wrote:
>
> We treat a delay in a sequence the same way we treat a page change as
> they are logically similar in that you can coalesce all write before
> a delay (in the same way you can coalesce all writes before a page
> change is needed)
>
> Signed-off-by: Nariman Poushin <nariman@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
> ---
> drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 59 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c b/drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c
> index 0a849ee..a67473c2 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
> #include <linux/of.h>
> #include <linux/rbtree.h>
> #include <linux/sched.h>
> +#include <linux/delay.h>
>
> #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
> #include "trace.h"
> @@ -47,6 +48,17 @@ static int _regmap_bus_reg_write(void *context, unsigned int reg,
> static int _regmap_bus_raw_write(void *context, unsigned int reg,
> unsigned int val);
>
> +static void regmap_sequence_delay(unsigned int delay_us)
> +{
> + /* For small delays it isn't worth setting up the hrtimers
> + * so fall back on udelay
> + */
> + if (delay_us < 10)
> + udelay(delay_us);
> + else
> + usleep_range(delay_us, delay_us * 2);
> +}
I think usleep_range() can't be used for fast_io, which is performed
inside a spinlock. And, the locking can't be known explicitly,
e.g. the caller may set its own config->lock, so even the check for
fast_io isn't enough.
Takashi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists